In the later judgment of Shrey Gupta vs. State of U.P., conveyed on October 1, 2024, the Allahabad High Court tended to the basic lawful issue of distinguishing between consensual sexual connections and the offense of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The candidate, Shrey Gupta, looked for the subduing of a charge sheet recorded against him, affirming assault and blackmail (Sections 376 and 386 IPC). The case stemmed from an FIR held up by the witness, who claimed that Gupta had set up a physical relationship with her over a 12-13 year period, under the pretense of marriage after the passing of her spouse.
The witness, a widow at the time of the complaint, affirmed that Gupta had not only entered into a relationship with her based on the guarantee of marriage but had moreover assaulted her at gunpoint on one occasion and debilitated to create a video recording of the assault public unless she paid him ₹50,00,000. The case, in this manner, centered around whether the long-standing relationship between the two parties, which at first showed up consensual, might be interpreted as assault when Gupta afterward denied to wed her and purportedly coerced her.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the relationship was consensual for a significant amount of time after considering the evidence, which included the charge sheet and the parties' statements. Referring to significant rulings from the Supreme Court, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, the court reaffirmed that not all marriage vows, even if broken, constitute rape. The court stressed that in order for a false promise to be deemed rape under Section 375 IPC, it must be made with the intention of tricking the victim into agreeing to a sexual relationship.
In this case, the court observed that the informant was fully aware of the relationship’s nature from the start, and even during the period when her husband was alive, the physical relationship continued with her consent. The informant, a mature woman with grown-up children, could not claim that her consent was obtained through deception or coercion, especially since there was no immediate promise of marriage at the time the relationship began.
Eventually, the court concluded that the issue between the two did not sum to rape within the meaning of Section 376 IPC. Moreover, the court held that the insignificant breach of a guarantee to wed, especially in such a complex and long-standing relationship, may not be translated as a untrue guarantee made with malevolent aim to misuse the witness.
The judgment reflects a nuanced understanding of consensual connections and the legitimate edge for arraigning assault cases based on broken guarantees of marriage. The court suppressed the criminal procedures against Shrey Gupta, asserting that the consensual nature of their relationship blocked the charges of assault.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Shrey Gupta Allahabad High Court consensual relationship Section 376 IPC rape charges promise to marry breach of promise extortion Indian Penal Code Section 386 Supreme Court judgments quashing charge sheet false promise.
